Recent comments

You obviously have never worked for, or had to do do business with, a State or Federal facility.

I have on and off over the years, and do currently contract with government facilities. The stories Matt tells are typical and ingrained all over the country.

Check any large city's debt obligations. Check the inability of any of them to fire or remove under performing employees, their inability to promote outstanding employees, the layer upon layers of redundant management, and you may start to grasp the concept of what Matt speaks to in his post.

If you read my post you understood that I don't disagree with what ChicagoMatt observes. The same stuff happens in California.

The things he described are poor plannning, probably reckless governance.

You can't get rid of student loan debt in bankruptcy either. I don't know about private student loans, but if you do Federal loans, like most people do, they can and will garnish your wages, just like they would for back taxes or child support. The only way to get out of student loan debt is to pay them off, or die.

How can this improbable hypothetical atheist buy up all these antiquites if no one will sell to them?

EVASION ALERT 3: Who said no one would sell them?

We have to remember that if YOUR libertarian dystopia existed, there'd probably be fewer institutions... universities and museums, that were capable of excavating and protecting these artifacts since such efforts costs money and are not always intended to make money. Museums and universities would probably be forced to focus on exhibits and classes that bought in the cash. So who would fund research and excavations? Most likely charity or by the rich... and if the latter, would they not want these artifacts for their private collections? Others who did dig for artifacts would act more like looters... looking for what they could sell for the best price. So much for careful scientific excavations.

So fewer artifacts... uncertain preservation, ruined archeological sites. Institutions like museums might be liquidated because current trustees thought it best. In such an environment why couldn't someone start to corner the market or withhold artifacts so they could not be studied?

How much are you willing to pay to get a pizza delivered? The Papa Johns here charges $3.50. If it is $6 for delivery how many more people will choose to to pick up their order? Instead of 3 delivery people a shift they may only need one or two. You extrapolate that out to an economy as a whole you are talking about a lot of potential part time jobs that will no longer exist.

$10.

It reminds me of the great pizza delivery shortage of 1968.

Or, maybe the pizza place will need to train the delivery people to work the counter, to handle the increase in pick ups. Or maybe the people that remain employed, will spend their money at other establishments that employ MW workers, and the pizza delivery people can get on there. And not put so much wear and tear on their car.

It takes maybe a minute to ring up an order, much shorter then what it takes to deliver so there would be few hours available.

The cost of things would go up, lessening demand. Consider currently making $16 an hour, the cost of many things are going to rise as the result of raising the min wage from $9.32 to $15. Will the lesser demand compensate for the higher demand from the min wage folks with more disposable income? We will see.

Do you think it is reasonable to assert that this relativly large bump in the min wage lead to fewer job oppurtunities at the entry level?

Yes. For some, and in the short term.

Some will be laid off. Some will be displaced by people more willing to work for that higher rate, that are more skilled, and weren't looking before.

Haven't we been through this enough?

Do you have new argument?

Where's the freemarketers here? Nothing is stopping other businesses from absorbing the costs, and the customers that find another place willing to deliver without passing every dollar on to the customer.

Where is the historical evidence for raising the MW destroying the economy? There isn't any. Where's the cost benefit analysis of people making a better wage able to buy better nutrition, or medicine, and relying on the gov less?

You all have such problems with people that need to use your tax dollars, but no problem with the people that make that a necessity for many.

As MW goes up, maybe your pizza will cost more, but maybe more people will buy your cabinets?

As MW remains stagnant, fewer of them can afford to buy things, and put more pressure on their parents, but you think so many will be laid off, it will be worse for every one. Where's the proof? History doesn't support it. Yes, you probably know someone that would be adversely affected. But why is that person, or the hypothetical people you talk about, more important than the ones that remain employed, and have a better existence, until the next time we let MW get so far behind the times?

Yes, prices will rise, but there is no evidence to expect a huge problem. And if your're talking about over a longer term, yes, but MW needs to track that.

I agree there has to be a limit. And I'll agree to that limit, just as soon as you prove to me what that limit is.

When we talk about helping people, the right says it's "only" 3% that work for MW. When we talk about the overall effect, it's "OMG, the horror of it all!"

The person making $16/hr will probably get an increase too.

I don't know if $15 is too high, at least too quickly, but it needs to get there soon.

The problem is that the effect of the minimum wage on the overall economy is very slight. It is hard to see any effect of the minimum wage whether it is high or low. So if you are a liberal, you take the position that if you cannot see any effect on the economy, let's raise the MW to help out those at the low end of the totum pole. Prove to me that there is a negitive effect of raising the minimum wage. the liberals say. And they can get away with that argument because other factors totally over shadow the effects of a minimum wage change.

But even the CBO has determined that a MW increase to $15 an hour will cost jobs. It will lift a whole bunch of people out of poverty, but it will also cost some their jobs. Is that a good move overall? You tell me, depends on whether you are one of lucky ones who keeps their job and gets the raise, or if you are one of the unlucky ones that gets the boot. And don't kid yourself, both of those things will happen.

People on the right are ALWAYS trying to relate personal, "common sense" scenarios to a dynamic economy, and explicitly say, "If it isn't good for some, how can it be good for all?" "I don't run MY household that way!" Your household isn't an economy, and your friends aren't the only ones affected by your political support for an issue.

Show me evidence of a LACK of increasing the MW, made it overall better, and remove the factors UNDER shadowing the significance.

And the CBO included "ZERO" in it's useless, cya projection, but you wouldn't want to notice that, would you?!

This is where the whole argument about monopolies always gets confusing. Of course you can get a different word processor but you can't get the one that everybody wants. Ask any libertarian about the US Post Office. They'll tell you it's a monopoly and they would be correct even though there are other options for sending a letter or package. A true monopoly where there's only one option is a very rare thing.

Look at Standard Oil. They weren't the only option for oil and gas but they were deemed a monopoly and forced to break up. Anyone can nit pick the edges of a supposed monopoly and come up with reasons why it is not one. That's not the point though. The point is if a company has the size and resources to squish the competition it will monopolize a market. Comcast in Boston and Philly is a prime example. Edit. I'm such a dumbass sometimes.

I do so like shopping Amazon. I always go for the free shipping which is supposed to take longer to deliver. But, in most cases, I get what I ordered before their estimated time for delivery....even when it's shipped from one of the non-Amazon vendors. And things are always way cheaper than trying to buy them locally...especially the books. It's a good idea to read all of the ratings and comments, though.

I'd almost rather the USPS did deliver that last mile rather than sitting around all day (8:00am to 8:00pm) for the other delivery services to show up. At least I know about what time I will get the packages with USPS. I'm always so worried that thieves will tail the UPS or FED-Ex trucks and snatch my packages before I get to the front door. I think that thieves would be more reluctant to follow a USPS mail person around. Federal offense to steal USPS mail.

The free market is only an intellectual exercise. The US is, and will never be, a free market. That is probably for the better. In the real world, free markets lead to producer concentration, monopolies and other predatory behavior. All bow down at the altar of crony capitalism!

Just curious, name me a situation where a monopoly was created in a free market.

Microsoft

Monsanto

US Steel

Standard Oil

Ma Bell

Major League Baseball

NFL

Some of these are mostly gone now but were created in a somewhat free market. If you want to count the US as being a primarily free market.

Are your above examples the only seller of a product and there is no legal barriers to someone else competing with them.

Legal barriers are not the only thing that decides a monopoly. If you can provide the same service but are too small to compete then it's still a monopoly. If you can't compete due to a lack of capital is another example. Monsanto now owns from 70 to 100% of the seed market. Try buying Microsoft word from someone other than Microsoft. Try competing with the NFL or MLB. These are monopolies in the real world. The problem with libertarians is that they are not bound by reality.

I don't know about the seed market, but there are other word processing programs out there other than Word. And there are other baseball games to go to other than MLB games. My son played on a team in Bellingham, WA last summer that drew about 2,000 fans a game and charged about $6 a ticket. And the MLB and NFL are basically chasing entertainment dollars, so if their prices got too far out of line people would vote with their feet and go for other types of entertainment. So sorry, I do not see pro sports leagues as monopolies.

How much are you willing to pay to get a pizza delivered? The Papa Johns here charges $3.50. If it is $6 for delivery how many more people will choose to to pick up their order? Instead of 3 delivery people a shift they may only need one or two. You extrapolate that out to an economy as a whole you are talking about a lot of potential part time jobs that will no longer exist.

$10.

It reminds me of the great pizza delivery shortage of 1968.

Or, maybe the pizza place will need to train the delivery people to work the counter, to handle the increase in pick ups. Or maybe the people that remain employed, will spend their money at other establishments that employ MW workers, and the pizza delivery people can get on there. And not put so much wear and tear on their car.

It takes maybe a minute to ring up an order, much shorter then what it takes to deliver so there would be few hours available.

The cost of things would go up, lessening demand. Consider currently making $16 an hour, the cost of many things are going to rise as the result of raising the min wage from $9.32 to $15. Will the lesser demand compensate for the higher demand from the min wage folks with more disposable income? We will see.

Do you think it is reasonable to assert that this relativly large bump in the min wage lead to fewer job oppurtunities at the entry level?

Yes. For some, and in the short term.

Some will be laid off. Some will be displaced by people more willing to work for that higher rate, that are more skilled, and weren't looking before.

Haven't we been through this enough?

Do you have new argument?

Where's the freemarketers here? Nothing is stopping other businesses from absorbing the costs, and the customers that find another place willing to deliver without passing every dollar on to the customer.

Where is the historical evidence for raising the MW destroying the economy? There isn't any. Where's the cost benefit analysis of people making a better wage able to buy better nutrition, or medicine, and relying on the gov less?

You all have such problems with people that need to use your tax dollars, but no problem with the people that make that a necessity for many.

As MW goes up, maybe your pizza will cost more, but maybe more people will buy your cabinets?

As MW remains stagnant, fewer of them can afford to buy things, and put more pressure on their parents, but you think so many will be laid off, it will be worse for every one. Where's the proof? History doesn't support it. Yes, you probably know someone that would be adversely affected. But why is that person, or the hypothetical people you talk about, more important than the ones that remain employed, and have a better existence, until the next time we let MW get so far behind the times?

Yes, prices will rise, but there is no evidence to expect a huge problem. And if your're talking about over a longer term, yes, but MW needs to track that.

I agree there has to be a limit. And I'll agree to that limit, just as soon as you prove to me what that limit is.

When we talk about helping people, the right says it's "only" 3% that work for MW. When we talk about the overall effect, it's "OMG, the horror of it all!"

The person making $16/hr will probably get an increase too.

I don't know if $15 is too high, at least too quickly, but it needs to get there soon.

The problem is that the effect of the minimum wage on the overall economy is very slight. It is hard to see any effect of the minimum wage whether it is high or low. So if you are a liberal, you take the position that if you cannot see any effect on the economy, let's raise the MW to help out those at the low end of the totum pole. Prove to me that there is a negitive effect of raising the minimum wage. the liberals say. And they can get away with that argument because other factors totally over shadow the effects of a minimum wage change.

But even the CBO has determined that a MW increase to $15 an hour will cost jobs. It will lift a whole bunch of people out of poverty, but it will also cost some their jobs. Is that a good move overall? You tell me, depends on whether you are one of lucky ones who keeps their job and gets the raise, or if you are one of the unlucky ones that gets the boot. And don't kid yourself, both of those things will happen.

I think it is clear from this forum that all, or almost all, progressives are against secession. They are also against State Nullification of Federal Law.

Gee Einstein... can it be the opposition comes not from being "progressive"... but it's libertarian loons such as yourself who are rewriting the Constitution to suit them? That some of the forums far right wingers join you comes as no surprise since they love when the Second was bastardized and the Ninth ignored.

How much are you willing to pay to get a pizza delivered? The Papa Johns here charges $3.50. If it is $6 for delivery how many more people will choose to to pick up their order? Instead of 3 delivery people a shift they may only need one or two. You extrapolate that out to an economy as a whole you are talking about a lot of potential part time jobs that will no longer exist.

$10.

It reminds me of the great pizza delivery shortage of 1968.

Or, maybe the pizza place will need to train the delivery people to work the counter, to handle the increase in pick ups. Or maybe the people that remain employed, will spend their money at other establishments that employ MW workers, and the pizza delivery people can get on there. And not put so much wear and tear on their car.

It takes maybe a minute to ring up an order, much shorter then what it takes to deliver so there would be few hours available.

The cost of things would go up, lessening demand. Consider currently making $16 an hour, the cost of many things are going to rise as the result of raising the min wage from $9.32 to $15. Will the lesser demand compensate for the higher demand from the min wage folks with more disposable income? We will see.

Do you think it is reasonable to assert that this relativly large bump in the min wage lead to fewer job oppurtunities at the entry level?

Yes. For some, and in the short term.

Some will be laid off. Some will be displaced by people more willing to work for that higher rate, that are more skilled, and weren't looking before.

Haven't we been through this enough?

Do you have new argument?

Where's the freemarketers here? Nothing is stopping other businesses from absorbing the costs, and the customers that find another place willing to deliver without passing every dollar on to the customer.

Where is the historical evidence for raising the MW destroying the economy? There isn't any. Where's the cost benefit analysis of people making a better wage able to buy better nutrition, or medicine, and relying on the gov less?

You all have such problems with people that need to use your tax dollars, but no problem with the people that make that a necessity for many.

As MW goes up, maybe your pizza will cost more, but maybe more people will buy your cabinets?

As MW remains stagnant, fewer of them can afford to buy things, and put more pressure on their parents, but you think so many will be laid off, it will be worse for every one. Where's the proof? History doesn't support it. Yes, you probably know someone that would be adversely affected. But why is that person, or the hypothetical people you talk about, more important than the ones that remain employed, and have a better existence, until the next time we let MW get so far behind the times?

Yes, prices will rise, but there is no evidence to expect a huge problem. And if your're talking about over a longer term, yes, but MW needs to track that.

I agree there has to be a limit. And I'll agree to that limit, just as soon as you prove to me what that limit is.

When we talk about helping people, the right says it's "only" 3% that work for MW. When we talk about the overall effect, it's "OMG, the horror of it all!"

The person making $16/hr will probably get an increase too.

I don't know if $15 is too high, at least too quickly, but it needs to get there soon.

The stadium isn't even finished yet and you claim it to be a large part of the state's growth. Hmmmm.. interesting. Regardless, Wisconsin has one of the worst job growth's in the country and Minnesota is in the top 5. Wisconsin is defunding education and giving the breaks to big business. Minnesota actually raised taxes and they're doing well. I like how you changed the subject though talking about a politician.

Wow. What a pleasant surprise to check here and find these good comments.

Clearly, people who have read this understand my main points. Nimblecivet, being an influence on observers is something I have discussed with Brenda, who you know, but I didn't make explicit in this essay. I am glad that you brought that issue up.

About the prospect of a world war, I just don't find it feasible that the people who are in a position to make it happen, would be so incredibly stupid, and I don't know why they would want to start a world war anyway.

Of course, the content of a site such as this inevitably leads to argumentation. But the purpose of arguments isn't necessarily to "win" them, and even when wrong-headed, conservatives tend to make unequivocally winning an argument difficult.

Robindell, some psychologists do pay attention to issues such as inequality, but not enough of them. I think sociologists do a better job of that, being more focused on society.

Marion, there has been social psychology research on the legalistic world view versus the scientific one, that might pertain to your comments. The legalistic view is sadly lacking when it comes to approaching the truth. The scientific one does much better, but even it is flawed. At least it tends to result in greater understanding over time, though.

Palindromedary, isn't believing oneself to be wrong, an oxymoron? LOL In that case, one must be wrong.

Hello Leigh. I got a fortune cookie that says that a blue eyed person admires me. I think it's either you, or the polish lady who teaches a biology class after mine on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and seems to arrive early just so that she can talk to me. LOL

" It only takes one "bad apple" who has an agenda of euthanizing patients for involuntary euthanasias to occur. It is quite easy for such a nurse, physician or other staff to impose his or her own will on those most vulnerable. Falsifying the medical record has been reported in these types of cases. "

Hospice Patients Alliance affirms that all human life is inherently valuable and that the role of hospice nurses, physicians and all other staff is to alleviate suffering and provide comfort for the sick and dying without sanctioning or assisting their suicide. A death with dignity allows for a natural death in its own time, while doing everything possible to assure relief from distressing symptoms.

" The opposite of love is not hate, but indifference;
the opposite of beauty is not ugliness, but indifference;
the opposite of learning is not ignorance, but indifference;
Hatred cannot be anything but evil.
Hatred contaminates me.
We cannot give in to hatred;
To preserve humanity we must fight indifference."

- Professor Elie Wiesel of Boston University.

Articles About Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide and the End-of-Life

Artwork by Vickie Travis
Design by Panzer and Travis

Note: This picture is meant to caution the public about hospices that betray the original hospice mission and that involuntarily euthanize patients, most commonly through overdosages of morphine and other opioid medications, or through the inappropriate use of terminal sedation to place a patient into a coma from which they are not allowed to awake: they die from dehydration in less than two weeks. Some hospices are not hastening the deaths of patients, but many are. We regularly receive complaints from family members (from all over the USA) reporting such involuntary hastened deaths!
Hospice Patients Alliance supports the original hospice mission which is to relieve suffering at the end-of-life, but never to hasten death, allowing for death in its own natural timing. See the HPA "Hospice Life Pledge."

Like those hauled off to Auschwitz, the vulnerable elderly, severely disabled and chronically ill are being killed in large numbers. These vulnerable citizens suffer and die in their own silent Holocaust, a Holocaust that is invisible to the public, because it is hidden behind the wall of "privacy laws" that protect the killers, but do not protect the patients. My article entitled, "The Invisible Holocaust" is available in the Spring, 2007 edition of Celebrate Life Magazine.

We need to understand that the Euthanasia Society of America, formed in 1938 changed its name several times as it "morphed" in order to make itself more "palatable" to the American public. It changed names, merged with other organizations, but always kept its goal in mind. The leaders of the organization told followers to "walk, don't run" as they made incremental steps to changing how Americans think about dying, and especially about imposed death ("euthanasia"), assisted-suicide and hospice's own brand of euthanasia, "terminal sedation" used to impose death through dehydration. This hospice way of ending life is called the Third Way and gets around formal decisions to euthanize a patient or assist in a suicide by providing a lethal medication. It is being done widely in American hospices, but not all.

We must find those hospices that remain true to the standard of "doing no harm," and who revere the sanctity of life. Only with these hospices will there ever be a safe haven for patients who wish to live until they die a natural death in its own timing. The Hospice Patients Alliance website provides a timeline showing the direct connection between the National Hospice & Palliative Care Organization and the Euthanasia Society of America.

Was your loved one killed, against his or her will, through the use of narcotics and sedatives? Do you know of cases where chronically ill patients were shunted into hospices to be done away with? Was your loved one medically killed in a hospice? Write to Hospice Patients Alliance with a brief summary of the facts involved. Let us know if you are willing to work together to stop illegal medical killings of patients. Thanks!

For those who are reluctant to speak about a medical killing of someone they knew, something to think about: if every child and adult who knows that child molestation is occuring kept silent, what would happen? ... if every woman who had been raped kept silent, what would happen? ... if every witness to a crime kept silent, would there be any justice? ... would there be any punishment for those who commit crimes? Can there be a stop to involuntary killings if people keep silent? As Professor Elie Wiesel says, "To preserve humanity we must fight indifference."

Here are examples in a family's own words (modified to maintain confidentiality) of how staff in some hospices have medically killed their patients:

Other Actual Involuntary Euthanasia Cases that Occurred In the Hospice Setting

It only takes one "bad apple" who has an agenda of euthanizing patients for involuntary euthanasias to occur. It is quite easy for such a nurse, physician or other staff to impose his or her own will on those most vulnerable. Falsifying the medical record has been reported in these types of cases. Staff may record that a patient with no pain actually had pain, thereby seeking to justify in the record the administration of high levels of narcotics. Families report patients being forced to take morphine and other narcotics when the patient directly refused to do so and stated they had no pain at all. Those "bad apples" with an agenda can tarnish the image of an otherwise excellent hospice program, and devastate the lives of the families whose loved ones they euthanize without permission.

A nationwide letter writing campaign has begun to protest involuntary euthanasias of helpless patients in hospices. Please write to government officials who are responsible to see that laws are enforced. Almost every elected official will have "friends" who are connected with the local hospice in their home region. District Attorneys may personally know the doctors or nurses involved and therefore may be quite hesitant to act to investigate medical killings in hospice settings.

For medical killings in hospice settings to be prosecuted, the public will need to make sure the DAs and government representatives know that this is not going to be tolerated by the people of the USA! Let them know very clearly that you want these medical killings stopped, and that those medical killings which are reported should be prosecuted. "Angels of death" in hospices who violate laws must not be immune to prosecution for killing patients. Picketing the local county district attorney's office when they refuse to prosecute a killing in a health care setting should be happening all around our nation! The people must speak up!

You can also bring attention to this problem by calling local talk radio hosts. Keep on talking about this issue and keep writing till the government takes notice and changes their total suppression of this issue. Keep on working till the government takes definitive action. Some of us plan on writing regularly every month until Congressional Hearings are held; we hope you will join us in reporting your experience with hospices.

Do whatever you can, however small! Your actions do matter. It is only by becoming active that we can turn our nation around!

Please ask everyone you know to write as well, and to contact others to help in this vital effort. We can stop the termination of patients against their will. Hospices must no longer have a license to kill. Elderly, chronically ill, disabled and other patients must not be terminated against their will. Hospice agencies must no longer be killing fields. Patients and families must be able to trust that they will receive care, not termination!

Question: where would you go to be able to euthanize patients easily without detection if you had an agenda to put people out of their misery by euthanizing them? Would you go to a hospital where you could easily be detected, a nursing home where you might be detected, or a hospice where you would never be detected? Answer: Hospice!

There are "wolves" among the sheep, i.e., euthanizers among those who truly do provide compassionate hospice care. Not all hospice administrators are aware of what may be going on in their own hospice, and this should be a wake-up call to take a close look when families complain about their loved one being hastened to their death or medically killed.

Protective Documents
Protective "Loving Will" from American Life League

Protective Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care
("Protective Medical Decisions Document") from Patients Rights Council

Protective "Will to Live" from National Right to Life Committee

In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak up, because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Catholic. Then they came for me... and by that time, there was no one to speak up for anyone. -- Martin Niemoeller, Pastor, German Evangelical (Lutheran) Church

In America, the pro-euthanasia groups now say (publicly) they favor the legalization of euthanizing the terminally ill who are willing and want to commit suicide (also called "Physician Assisted Suicide"). But in private, in their own seminars and organizational meetings, they advocate legalizing the euthanasia of the elderly, Alzheimer's patients, disabled and others who may find life difficult or have lost the sense of the meaning of their life. Many euthanasia advocates favor the legalization of euthanasia for the chronically ill and weak.

Euthanasia advocates also favor legalizing the euthanasia of the congenitally "defective" newborn who may have deformation of the body or mental retardation, even children with Downs syndrome, some of which have enough intelligence to go through high school and college with passing grades. Many families who have children with disabilities from birth know all too well how hospital staff (doctors, nurses and others) often advise them to let their babies die by withholding needed care.

Withholding needed care is a form of euthanasia. Those families with disabled children love their children and do not find their children's lives to be "meaningless." Who should get to decide who lives or who dies? Should the nurse or doctor at the bedside be allowed to become "judge, jury and executioner" all in one?

HMOs and health care corporations (in general) who provide care to patients have a financial incentive to favor the legalization of euthanasia for those patients who are not terminal, not elderly, but simply have the misfortune of having an expensive illness to treat. If euthanasia is legalized for patients in many categories, HMOs and health care corporations will be able to more easily euthanize anyone who is judged to be unworthy of life, defective in their judgment, or expensive to treat. Medical records are routinely falsified to cover up what is already going on. Think it's not possible? Families report that it has happened to their loved ones, against their wishes, right here in the USA.

If euthanasia advocates have their way with the laws of our nation, and people can be euthanized for so many reasons, our nation will no longer be the land of the free, but a land of people in fear of entering a hospice, hospital or nursing home. Illegal euthanasias of such patients are already being performed in our nation, quietly, behind the scenes, in the isolation of the nursing home, hospice and oncology wards in the hospitals.

The real news is not that one "angel of death" is prosecuted; the real news is that there are hundreds and thousands of angels of death in our nation, working quietly "underground," so to speak, and physicians and nurses know this is going on. The news is that many patients who are not actively dying are being killed, not cared for, in hospice agencies.

If you or your loved ones enter a hospice, hospital or nursing home, how will you be able to know that you or your loved one will not be euthanized? How can we trust the health care professionals ... nurses, doctors and aides, if some of them are quietly euthanizing patients against their will? When this practice is condoned (privately of course) by health care corporations and agencies, entering the health care system becomes a risk when it should be a place of compassion and caring.

Just as the press in Germany did not announce what the Nazis were doing at Auschwitz and other concentration camps, those who do euthanasias without the permission of the patient do not announce what they are doing; they cover it up and falsify medical records.

Involuntary euthanasias are similar to the deaths caused by the Nazis, except that they are done one by one and not all in one location. They are done where the public has no way of knowing that a patient was murdered, and families who cry out for help are mainly being ignored by the local District Attorneys and federal government. If all these patients were transferred to one location and exterminated against their will in one location, it would be called a massacre, and rightly so. Not only is killing patients against their will reprehensible, when patients are hastened to an untimely death in a hospice, it makes all hospices and their staff look bad. These untimely deaths must be stopped!

Something to think about: When commenting on proposition 161 which was a failed attempt at legalizing euthanasia in California in 1992, California's then Attorney General Daniel E. Lungren stated,

"This measure would result in some unknown savings due to decreased utilization of the state Medi-Cal program and other public programs, including county programs."

Yes, killing the patient does save money for the HMO, the hospice, and the government. Hospice care is less expensive than acute care services in a hospital. Real hospice care is humane. Killing the patient involuntarily is monstrous, but any form of euthanasia saves money as then Attorney General Lungren noted. Does this have any significance regarding widely reported inaction on the part of governments in prosecuting many medical killings which occur in hospices?

Of course, that's just what the Bible says (one version anyway) and the Bible was written by people whose aim it was to manipulate other people into believing that their rewards will be received in Heaven...so forget about trying to get them here on Earth. How convenient for the wealthy, eh? Feed the ignorant masses rubbish superstitions and false stories while living the good life themselves.

Don't get me wrong...if there really was a Jesus 2000 years ago...he was most likely a rebel...probably a Sicarri who carried the Sicarri curved daggers that were used to sneak up behind Roman soldiers in the market square and stab them in the back then concealing their weapons in their clothes while blending in with the crowds. In other words the Roman Homeland Security would have called them terrorists. But the Romans made a mockery of him and wrote the fictitious stories you read about in the Bible. Sometimes, the pen might be mightier than the sword. Of course, I could be wrong! ;-}

Don't believe MN's economy is booming. Figures lie and liars figure. They have lost dozens of wealthy residents and Medtronic, Advanced Automotive are just a couple of prominent companies that have pulled the plug.

Governor Mark Dayton who gave himself a F rating when he was a senator, achieved all his wealth by inheritance from family owned Dayton's department stores, and marrying a Rockefeller. He is the classic "sit around the pool and wait for the dividend check to arrive" guy Hartmann accuses others of being. He hides all his money in nearby South Dakota thus evading high MN taxes. He has been in rehab more times than he lists. He is so drug addled, his speeches have become un-intelligible. His children are restaurant owners that pushed the idea on him that any minimum wage increase for tipped employees in their industry would eat up all the their restaurant profits. Yea, he is a character.

A couple of weeks ago the state declared they had a surplus of $1 billion dollars and literally a day ago, they "found" another billion to add to that number. Only democrats could "find" an extra billion laying around. Regardless, there is currently a $700 million dollar lawsuit that will cut heavily into any surplus they care to declare. Right now the democrats are arguing over how to quickly spend all that money before that suit is settled.

Let's not spend time mentioning much of Minnesotas growth is coming from taxpayer funded un-needed stadium construction. The third one in nearly as many years. God forbid baseball, football, and college football are played on the same field.